Thursday, September 29, 2011

Huge Flood Escapes Detection by miraculously shrinking to fit into tiny minds

The wilful obtuseness of some of the evolutionists at EvC, such as exhibited in Percy's summation on a thread about the Flood is SO wearying. Really there's no point in that debate AT ALL. Good grief! Not that the creationists on that thread were particularly astute either but that's really beside the point. The obtuseness of the evolutionists is really something to marvel at.
This thread provided a showcase for the strong correlation between ignorance of all things geological and misinterpretation of geological evidence. The less you know the crazier the explanations that make sense to you.
I have no idea if there's anything fair about this statement or not since I didn't go back and review the thread and he gives no examples.
This thread also highlighted the inability or unwillingness of creationists to address evidence that was brought to their attention, for instance the fine sedimentary layers of varves
Often this is because the good evidence given by the creationists has been ignored or mangled beyond recognition and makes the claims on the other side irrelevant anyway. Beyond that, not having an answer for some of the multitudinous claims the evos make is to be expected. But the evidence FOR the Flood is prodigious without them, and they just have to be put aside for later. Meanwhile the evidence that HAS been given for the Flood needs to be acknowledged. Like years ago already.
or the miles of limestone that both require quiet water and the passage of much time.
This kind of statement is typical and ridiculous. It merely begs the question, assuming formation in situ, which fits evolutionist assumptions, not Floodist assumptions. The Flood concept assumes that the calcareous creatures that eventually made up the limestone, such as in the cliffs of Dover, were transported there on the Flood just as all the sediments were that make up the geologic column, and formed into rock in short order by the enormous pressures of the strata that were laid on top of them, that were washed away by the receding flood water. In other words the limestone deposits only "require quiet water and the passage of much time" to be FORMED IN PLACE. But the living creatures that make up the formation were not formed in place, that is, they did not live and die at that location. In fact how does one explain such an enormous dense concentration of them on such a supposition anyway? No, they were carried there from elsewhere, piled up together in one massive graveyard and then solidified by pressure from above, just as the other strata of the geologic column were.
Or how a flood could deposit the layers of the Grand Canyon and crush them into stone under a great weight, then erode the canyon itself.
I've explained this quite well in many blog posts here, but also at EvC, to deaf ears. I'd repeat it if the prospect of speaking to deaf ears weren't so tiring at the moment.
But evidence for the flood? Nowhere to be seen.
Talking to the deaf and blind is a lost cause. Get off EvC, creationists. Leave them to their delusions.
I can see a successor thread being useful.
The very thought of another exercise in bad creationism answered by ignorant evolutionism makes me SO tired I can hardly keep my eyes open.

Next day. They are continuing to summarize the thread without giving any actual information about what was said on the thread, just their empty opinions about it, so it's hard to take any of it up substantively.

There ought to be a rule that a summation at least describe the points made on the thread that they are answering or supporting, for the sake of readers who didn't have time to read the whole thread. Otherwise what's the point of a Summation at all. Oh, propaganda I suppose.

But I would like to comment on RAZD's summation, in which he's proposing a follow-up thread that focuses on evidence from particular fossils and from known floods, apparently oblivious to the fact that he's begging the question from the getgo: One thing the Noachian Flood would NOT be, is similar to any known local floods.

Coyote follows that with another typical evolutionist begging of the question when he treats the dating of the strata as a foregone conclusion.

He does remind me that the creationist arguments were badly off target by identifying a particular sedimentary layer as the limit of the Flood. Utterly ridiculous. The Flood MUST account for ALL the layers, there's no way anything BUT such a Flood could explain any of them.

Then Dr A gives his usual contentless snarky sum-up.

At least Coyote gave some actual content from the thread, which is more than can be said for any of the rest of them. Oh, okay, Dr. A did mention that one creationist made the KT boundary his Flood level. It's important to have these things recognized. Beyond that Dr A just speaks in snarky analogies.

Alas, the Great Flood has escaped detection even by two of the creationist participants on the thread, ICANT and IamJoseph who deny that the Flood would have done what obviously it did. One of them thinks the Flood's effects can be compared with the work of the periodic filling of the Bay of Fundy, ONE tiny inlet on planet earth. Sigh. The other thinks the Bible says the Flood was regional. Sigh. A mess of a thread altogether, and they are thinking of a follow-up thread? Oh give us a break.

9/30 1:30 AM I could cry my eyes out. Moose has given ICANT a post of the month nomination for his "refreshing" observation about the Bay of Fundy in his comment:
But if the Bay of Fundy can rise 55 feet in 6 hours and then fall 55 feet in 6 hours and you can't see everything washed away, why would anyone assume that if the water rose a few hundred feet in 40 days it would leave any sign that it did so?
I'm aghast, I'm stricken. I can hardly believe a person would HAVE to point out the stupidity of this comparison -- the ENTIRE EARTH COVERED WITH WATER FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS, saturating ALL the dry land on the entire planet, dissolving it, breaking it up into fine sediments, moving it rapidly down slopes along with all the living things that had inhabited that dry land, carrying it all plus the dead sea creatures as well, in its currents and waves and tides -- compared to the filling and emptying of a channel that undergoes this daily, routinely, a tiny little channel long since carved out by the elements. Truly I want to cry. A Noah's Flood of tears. For days, weeks.

And yet another day and RAZD (now Zen Deist, keep forgetting) adds another summation. Are these people thinking at all?
Hi everyone,
Message 63 presents what I consider would be the best evidence for a global flood, mass extinctions, and also why the number and timing of such events is not consistent with a biblical flood.
Of course he may be talking to one of the creationists who has the absurd idea that the Flood level can be marked by a particular layer of sediment, but in any case he thinks you can see extinction events in differences between the fossil contents of particular strata, which of course you can't because they were laid down by the Flood waters and ALL the fossils within ALL of them are evidence of the huge extinction brought about by the Flood.
Likewise Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood? presents why I consider fossil evidence of marine life to be evidence of normal marine growth on ocean bottoms, as occurs today, and not evidence for a biblical flood.
Sigh. Here's the post he's referring to:
There are fossil marine deposits on virtually every mountain, including Mt Everest.
These fossil deposits are all of mature marine life, clams many years old, etcetera. If they are evidence of a world wide flood then:

(1) the flood was much longer in duration than is the published conjecture, or

(2) the marine environment was unusually productive, in which case we come to the problem of trilobites ... and all other extinct marine fauna and flora from the Precambrian through the marine dinosaurs ... not surviving the flood.

Thus you have a logical contradiction.

Evidence of multiple layers of mature marine environments on mountains is rather evidence of long ages -- ages to form mature marine environments, ages to cover them, ages for the other mature marine environments to form, and ages for the sedimentary basin to be pushed up into mountains by tectonic activity.
Unbelievable. They are "mature" therefore they couldn't have been deposited there by a Flood, or the Flood must have been of much longer duration? What are these people thinking? All the Flood did was MOVE things around, it was not an ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THINGS LIVED for pete's sake. The clams were mature wherever the Flood found them. The "marine environments" were ALREADY formed during the time preceding the Flood. What IS the matter with these people?

And go read the next few posts in that thread as well to find out they think that the sheer volume of dead marine life within the sediments within mountains REFUTES the Flood? Nay, it CONFIRMS it. I cannot fathom the bizarre mentality here.

And on the Flood model there IS no "Precambrian" period because it is simply the lowest rocks of the stack of strata. I can only sit here and shake my head. And none of the creationists on that thread objected to this stupidity? Well, perhaps they did, I haven't taken the time to read through it, but if they did nobody was paying any attention. He goes on:
Floods do not build mountains and floods do not sort debris.
"Floods?" How can anyone in their right mind even think for half a minute that the earth's being completely covered by water for a year can be compared to ordinary floods? What is the matter with their heads? And nobody said the Flood built the mountains. What we all say is that tectonic movement occurred as part of the Flood scenario, as volcanoes did as well, triggering such movements. The mountain building went on for some time after the Flood waters had drained away or mostly drained away -- many huge lakes were left standing probably for many years afterward. The mountain building occurred in the post-Flood period. What STUPIDITY to say anyone thinks the Flood itself BUILT the mountains!
Erosion from impounded water breaking through levees do not create the patterns seen in the Grand Canyon and other canyons, and especially do not produce the erosion patterns that winds produce.
Huh? Words fail me. All I can do is cry at the nonsense, the futility of such discussions.
The erosion from these kinds of events is more consistent with the scablands: wide flat scoured troughs. Thus a biblical flood cannot explain the evidence of the Grand Canyon, the evidence of many long years of gradual erosion by wind and rain and the undercutting of the river at the bottom.
The years of erosion SINCE the FLood are NEVER confused WITH the work of the Flood by any sane thinker. And anyone in his right mind should know a mere river could not have cut that canyon. YOUR FLOOD IS TOO SMALL!!! GOOD GRIEF!
I agree with ICANT (Message 317) that it is unlikely that a flood of such short duration as the biblical flood would need to leave any significant evidence of the flood -- it is too short a time for marine growth to occur in the manner shown by the fossil evidence. This is why evidence for mass extinction is more critical, and Message 63 shows why that argument fails.
MARINE GROWTH???? Where does this STUPID idea about GROWTH of anything come from in relation to a worldwide Flood that only KILLED things? Or extinction events as interpreted by a lack of fossils in a slab of sediment. Something is so wrong with people's heads at EvC they should shut the whole thing down. It's insanity at such a level it's hard to know where to begin. The only sensible thing to do is cry your eyes out over such a misuse of the mind.

No comments:

Post a Comment

PLEASE just register somewhere, there seem to be many options. A Google account is easy. And give SOME kind of pseudonym at least. THANKS!